Funny. While you were posting this, I was commenting on it in my post.

Really, though, in the unlikely event that this is a hoax, isn't the important thing the questions it raises? It may not be authentic, but I think the substance is accurate. Who cares if the guy lied and staged a photo op? The real importance lay in the truth of the matter, that liberals are toddler-hating thugs.

;-)

:-)

I think the best point made, so far, has been made by you in the comments on your post. If the guy truly staged this, how did he get his three year old daughter to be such a good actress?

It's silly.

It's just ridiculous, the logistics involved in pulling such a thing off. He'd have to be a complete moron to have his own son, who'd be immediately recognizable by anyone who knows them, pretend to be the union-shirt-outfitted thug.
And what of all the folks in the background jeering? Did he hire all of them? What are they, the Parlock Community Theater players?

Like I said, I suppose it's possible, but I think it unlikely that this is staged.
Also, I find it funny how the libs see that this guy has been harassed at three Dem gatherings in the past and assume that means he's making them up -- NOT that he's been harassed at three Dem gatherings!

I think this whole thing is overblown. I hate to see "us" run with this too much because I'm sure there's some Bush supporter somewhere who has, or is about to do something equally as stupid as tearing up a little girl's sign.

You're right, Daniel, there are some Repubs doing equally (or almost equally) stupid things. That hair-pulling guy comes to mind.
Here's the difference in my mind, though:
One, the sheer proliferation of these incidents perpetrated by the libs. (I listed just a few in my previous post.) It seems to me, and of course I admit I'm not unbiased, that we hear about more of these things happening to Repubs by libs, and not so much the other way around. Michael Williams today re-posts his own photo of when a "peace protester" tried to rip Williams's sign out of his hand.

Two, we do not defend or excuse this sort of action when it happens on our side. The hair-pulling guy is a jerk. So is any other conservative who acts like a thug in similar situations. But when a lib does something like this, instead of just saying, "Yeah, that's terrible," it has to be this huge right-wing conspiracy or hoax. It just can't be true, even as they curse and rage and hate in their comment threads and blog posts.

So I think there's a discernable difference.

If this guy's hoaxing, he's a loon, and I'll admit he is. But I don't think he is. He might have made a mistake taking his 3-year-old on a covert counter-demonstration run (I think he had to sneak the signs in). But I don't think he's a prankster.

Yeah, I understand your point. I don't want this sign tearing thing to be the kind of thing we make a giant deal out of though. Just me.

The person who tore a sign from a three year old is a jerk. NO QUESTION. But I do have to question the brains, judgement and parenting skills of a guy who would take his three year old to a place where John Edwards was arriving, to have her hold the opponents' sign. It's not like they were at a Bush rally. He intentionally placed his daughter in a potentially dangerous situation. Do I teach my 3 year old child to say "We love Bush."? :) Yes. But I would never take him to a Kerry rally wearing a Bush t-shirt; that would just be dumb.

Frankly, I am unconvinced. In addition to his taking a three-year-old child to a political rally (defying common sense), Mr. Parlock's history makes the whole incident seem suspicious. So does this thread.

Was his decision unwise? Sure.
But if this is not a hoax, I sure hope conservatives don't jump on the "he asked for it" bandwagon. Whatever his reason for being there, whatever bad judgment he used in doing it, THERE IS NO EXCUSE for grownups to accost little children.
Assuming this is on the up and up, let's put the blame where it really belongs -- not on the dad, but on the hateful Kerry supporters who apparently think this guy's daughter deserved to bear the brunt of their anger at her dad.

Jared, I agree. The person who did that to Parlock's daughter was wrong. And what he did was wrong. And I don't buy the conspiracy theory either.

But I'm not willing to free Parlock of responsibility. I think at home, he owes his daughter an apology. Some analagies:
- If I leave a hundred dollar bill on the front seat of my car and leave the window open, the person who reaches in and takes my $100 bill bears full responsibility for his actions. He is a theif. But what are you going to say to me? Didn't I do a dumb thing? Are you really going to feel sorry for me?
- If I go walking down the roughest street in San Antonio at 3am and get mugged, the muggers should go to jail and be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. What they did was wrong. But what are you going to say to me? "Shrode, next time don't go walking down that street, that was really dumb."
-If I walk into a Tennesse Volunteers Football Game in Knoxville, TN, at their home stadium wearing a shirt that says, "All Tennesse Volunteers are stupid, lily-livered morons" and someone dumps beer on my shirt or worse, slugs me, what they did was wrong. And they should be punished, but what are you going to say to me? "Shrode, that wasn't the brightest thing in the world." You might even say, "Shrode, you were asking for trouble."

What they did to this guy's daughter was wrong. And it should be said. But Mr. Parlock was asking for trouble, a fact that is intensified for me when I remember that he was involving his 3 year old daughter. I feel sorry for the girl, but not for him.

But you are right, there is NO EXCUSE to accost little children and what they did was wrong. I feel sorry for her for what happened... and for having a dad who is willing to put his daughter at risk.

I'm not willing to free Parlock of responsibility

I'm not either, which is why I said repeatedly in different threads that his decision was unwise, perhaps foolish.

But while we're using illustrations:

1. A man runs out of gas while driving through the inner city. While stranded, some dude robs him and shoots him. Does the victim need to be told that it was partly his fault for being in a bad part of town or for not checking his gas? Did he "ask for it"?

2. A woman wears a trashy outfit and goes to a sleazy bar. Foolish? Definitely. Later that evening she is sexually assaulted. Did she deserve it because of her foolish choice?

The very fact that we have to say the dad bears blame because he took his daughter to a Kerry rally where there might be violent characters is a telling indictment of the folks at the Kerry rally and by comparison only a very minor telling of the dad's judgment.
He can and perhaps absolutely should apologize to his daughter for not exercising better judgment. But in my opinion, he should take the responsibility for what those who accosted him and her did.

Jared, I'm sorry. :) Immediately after I wrote comment 10 I thought, "I'm being silly." But I never had a chance to come back and retract it. Here's the illustration I thought of yesterday, but never had a chance to come back and write:

Jared: Did you see that accident?
Shrode: Yeah.
Jared: That Red Car ran the red light and and was hit by the green car. He never should have ran that light. He broke the law.
Shrode: Yeah, but the green car was speeding. If the green car, though he had a green light, was going the speed limit he might have had time to avoid the crash.
Jared: You are right. It was foolish for green to be speeding. But it was red's fault because red ran the red light. He was clearly in the wrong and should get a ticket.
Shrode:You are right, Red is at fault. But green isn't free of responsibility. He shouldn't have been speeding. If he had been going the speed limit, it wouldn't have happened, even if red ran the red light.
Jared: Yes, Green was foolish, but red never should have ran the light.
Shrode: Red did a bad thing, but Green shouldn't have been speeding.
Jared: Yes, but RED.
Shrode: Yes but Green.
Jared: Yes but Red.
Shrode: Yes but Green.

I think I fell victim to my own pride, and wanted to have the last word. I think we are both on the same page. (Well, we're close anyway...) :)

No worries. I think we pretty much agree, too.
From all I've read on the incident, it looks like this guy was acting really foolishly and was even breaking the rules (sneaking in Bush signs to an Edwards event), but what should have happened is that the proper authorities escort him and his kids out of the event. The angry Dems there took the "law" into their own hands and ended up making thugs of themselves instead of just allowing this guy to make a fool of himself.

An update from Michelle Malkin

For those still interested:

Just received a call from the IUPAT, which has now identified the union member who grabbed the Bush/Cheney sign from Phil Parlock's daughter and threw the pieces at the family as they left the event. "We are taking steps to deal with the individual," the union told me. Meanwhile, President Bush sent the little girl a new sign that read:

"Dear Sophia, Thank you for supporting my campaign. I understand someone tore up your sign. So I am sending you a new sign and a signed picture."

Sweet.